Before It’s News — Sept 19, 2013

Tony Rooke refused to pay a TV license fee becausethe BBC intentionally misrepresented facts about the 9/11 attacks, he alleged. It is widely known that the BBC reported the collapse of World Trade Center Building 7 over 20 minutes before it occurred. WTC 7 was a 47-story skyscraper that was not hit by a plane on 9/11 but collapsed at free-fall speed later that day.

So Rooke said the BBC had to have had prior knowledge to a terror attack making them complicit in the attack. He presented the BBC footage to the judge along with a slew of other evidence, and the judge agreed that Rooke had a reasonable case to protest. Rooke was found not guilty and he was not fined for failure to pay the licensing fee.

For all intents and purposes a UK court has just ruled that the BBC was complicit in the September 11th, 2001 attacks in the United States. Fantastic. A small victory but a huge symbolic victory and one you would have never otherwised have heard of. So I suggest to you the reader to get the word out on this one. Spread it far and wide. This is big if only symbolic. -Mort

I believe the BBC, who are directly funded by the licence fee, are furthering the purposes of terrorism and I have incontrovertible evidence to this effect. I do not use this word lightly given where I am’ Tony Rooke

‘I am withholding all funds from the BBC, the Government and subsidiaries under Section 15 of the Terrorism Act,’ Mr Rooke told a police inspector (Section 15 of the 2000 Terrorism Act makes it an offence to invite another to provide money, intending that it should be used, or having reasonable cause to suspect that it may be used, for terrorist purposes).

Account of the Historic Day by Tony Farrell (who had been invited to give evidence by Tony Rooke but the judge would not allow it)

TONY ROOKE GOES GUNNING FOR BBC OVER 9/11 COVER UP

Tony Rooke is a very brave individual indeed. Yesterday he was in court at Horshamfollowing his candid refusal to pay for a BBC TV Licence and an earlier appearance on 17th December 2012 before the Magistrate Court at Crawley.

Yesterday, in a hearing before the same Magistrate Stephen Nicholls, Mr Rooke risked being convicted of a criminal offence over his non-payment stance. However, yesterday the Magistrate Judge decided after reading the evidence not to convict him. Instead, Tony was given a conditional discharge and ordered to pay £200 court costs. Being a Gunner supporter, he afterwards described this to me as a draw. However, most of the 100 or so people present saw it as a moral victory for him. Whatever, Tony is to be applauded for his courageous stance to date and the decision by the Magistrate Stephen Nicholls is an intriguing one worthy of some further scrutiny.

The Magistrate’s decision has to be seen in the context of Tony Rooke amassing a team of witnesses who had submitted witness statements and evidence to the court prior to yesterday’s hearing. These witnesses came from a variety of backgrounds and composed of the following:

In the event not one of the above witnesses were allowed into the hearing as the Magistrate Stephen Nicholls by his own admission claimed that he was not qualified to assess the evidence. As Tony Rooke has not been convicted of a criminal offense, it remains to be seen whether he will appeal the decision to a higher court.

The event had been advertised in advance and attracted a turn-out of over 100 people. The majority did not get to see the hearing as seating capacity was limited to 30. Despite the frustrations about room capacity and the judge’s decision not to call any of the witnesses to give evidence. Despite these frustrations, the gathering was very amicable and a police presence of several uniformed officers was maintained at the courts where there was friendly and inquisitive interaction. Representatives from ITN were present with cameras. Nobody from the BBC was there to cover the hearing.

Tony Rooke knows we have not had anything remotely like the truth about 9/11. He knows that the BBC has played their part in concealing the truth about what happened in America on 11th September 2001. He objects to this. He is acutely aware that the BBC has by various TV programms and news coverage countenanced the perpetuation of the Western Governments’ lies and the deceit about those attacks. Finding this offensive, Rookie was not prepared to be silent on the matter. He decided to make a personal stance and imaginatively turned terrorist legislation back against the government and the BBC BY using Section 15 Article (iii) of the Terrorist Act 2000. He alerted his local police force in writing and he wrote letters to the Home Office to seek clarification on the Terrorism Act 2000. Tony Rooke made his own documentary compilations and these issues.

In some respects, it was a pity though not entirely unexpected that the judge chose not to call the witnesses to be heard as evidence although he had read the evidence himself beforehand. This seemed like a damage limitation exercise. The outcome leaves things somewhat unclear. One the one hand anyone seeking to use Section 15 Article (iii) of the Terrorism Act to withhold TV license fees or indeed Council Tax payments may draw some encouragement from the verdict. The Magistrate did not convict Mr Rooke.

Tony Rooke’s main legal argument had been that such payment would be inappropriate for him to make because he argued that he has reasonable cause to suspect that the BBC have been and continue to be complicit in the cover-up of terrorist activity. Paying fees to that organisation would therefore be an offence under the S15 (iii) Terrorism Act 2000. Tony Rooke kept the details about his own views on 9/11 as simple as possible by not straying from how the BBC covered the events of 9/11 with particular reference to their premature announcement of the fall of WTC Building 7. Readers should be aware that the BBC announced this a full twenty three minutes before the building actually fell. Readers should also be aware that Building 7 was never hit by a plane and imploded in free fall speed indicative of controlled demolition. The BBC’s position on this fact alone is indefensible.

Tony Rooke cares deeply about the state of the nation and opposes the corruption from within. Over time he has developed a keen interest in geopolitics post 9/11 attacks. In deciding to act as a witness for Tony Rooke, I provided a two page character reference for him.

……………………..

A British 911 court Hearing (by NK)

Tony used the Jane Stanley casein his defence. Remember her? On 9/11, she was the BBC’s pre-cognitive reporter in New York. In the words of the Daily Mail, in its report of the trial, ” the BBC allegedly reported that World Trade Centre 7 had fallen 20 minutes before it did.”

Advance News from the BBC The BBC reported that World Trade Centre building 7 had collapsed, at 21.54 GMT on September 11th. The BBC’s reporter Jane Stanley was in New York giving this on the spot report – with WTC-7 right behind her in the picture still standing! The video of her report faded out five minutes before its actual collapse! It collapsed at 22.20 GMT. Tony Rooke rightly sees this as DIRECT COMPLICITY IN AN ACT OF TERROR.

FoxNews also reported the collapse of WTC-7 before it happened:

…we are getting word from New York that another building has collapsed and we understand this is a 47 story building … is that smoke coming from this third collapse?

Take a look at that right hand of the screen.

It’s going down right now.

Its a shame Tony Farrell was not allowed to speak, as he would have alluded to important evidence whereby the BBC has been complicit in the London Bombings of 2005, which is a bit nearer to home. As it was, the case focused entirely upon the american event.

From Tony Farrell’s written testimony to the Court:

1. … Mr Rooke is broadly saying he has reasonable cause to suspect that both US and UK governments and associated mainstream media networks were involved in the conspiracy to commit, cover up and apportion wrongful blame regarding the 9/11 attacks in 2001 and the 7/7 attacks in 2005. To his way of thinking, that renders our western governments as the real terrorists. Mainstream media in the UK are equally complicit in putting reputations before truth even when monstrous criminal acts have been committed. Given his beliefs, any payment to the BBC would be tantamount to him personally committing an offence under the Terrorism Act. Unwilling to break the law, he made his stand. Committing such an offence could have led to his imprisonment.

2. Mr Rooke has been in an invidious position. His options were either to pay his TV Licence and thus knowingly commit a serious offence under the terrorism act or withhold payment for a TV Licence. I know from our conversations how Mr Rooke has agonised over having to make such an awful choice. I am aware that Mr Rooke has written to the Home Office and alerted Sussex Constabulary of his concerns. I have seen documentation to this effect. For almost identical reasons, Mr Rooke has with-held payment of his council tax because to pay it would entail committing the same offence by law. I do not doubt Mr Rooke’s sincerity. He is not seeking to find obscure ways to get out of paying taxes or licence fees. He would sooner be paying all his taxes and licence fees promptly, reassured that our governments and our media corporations adhere to decent ethical standards. Sadly if we are honest with ourselves, we know that decent standards have fallen by the wayside. In an era when cash is king, it is plain to see that Mr Rooke sets himself different standards. He sees that the BBC has fallen short by some distance. It is my assessment that he sees the BBC as doing nothing to counter balance the distorted picture that that it has put out initially about the 9/11 and 7/7 terror attacks.

3. I know from our discussions that he sees the BBC as fully protecting a deceitful and unacceptable position. When I watch the BBC cover issues on terrorism and the threat from young Jihadists – I cringe because I know it is based on deceit and lies. Mr Rooke will point towards Jane Stanley – the BBC presenter famously making a premature call on the collapse of Building 7 after the fall of the twin towers. That 9/11 faux pas is conspicuous and shames the BBC. Their silence and evasiveness ever since renders them complicit in the cover up. Closer to home, I would point towards the racially bias overtones the BBC have shown in making putrid propaganda programmes such as BBC Generation Jihad, 7/7 Conspiracy Files, and 7/7 Conspiracy Roadshow. I could go on.

4. Mr Rooke has inspired me. Following his lead, I have withheld my own council tax and I have not paid any TV Licence for two years. For my part, I would like to congratulate Mr Rooke on his brave and morally correct stance. Had he paid money to the BBC while knowingly suspecting them, he would have committed a serious offence under the S15 Article (iii) of the Terrorism Act 2000. The Home Office have confirmed to him in writing that there can be no exemptions. Mr Rooke has done his research into 9/11, 7/7 and the role of the media. Anyone examining the quality behind his two main internet based films will see that he is genuine in his beliefs and his research is extensive. He does indeed have reasonable cause to suspect. That much I cannot doubt.

5. Finally, let none dare say that our media, our police or our governments could not cover up such things. The recent revelations about Jimmy Saville are a case in point for the BBC. Likewise, the 23 year long cover up of the Hillsborough disaster within my own previous police force is a case in point for the police, the judiciary and the governments. Men and women become accomplices to the evil they fail to oppose and the price good men and women pay for indifference to public affairs is that they become ruled by evil men. The nation is in a terrible moral crisis and frankly me we need more not less like my friend Rookie. Ethics is not for wimps. Tony Rooke is brave and courageous. I applaud his filmmaking, his integrity and his ethical stance against the BBC.

A 49-year-old man refused to pay his TV licence because he believed the BBC covered up facts about the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

Tony Rooke, who represented himself today at Horsham Magistrates’ Court in West Sussex, said he did not want to give money to an organisation ‘funding the practice of terrorism’.

Rooke, who admitted owning a TV and watching it without a licence, was found guilty of using an unlicensed set, given a six-month conditional discharge and told to pay £200 costs.

He was visited in May 2012 by an inspector after withdrawing his licence in March, but said he was withholding the funds under the Terrorism Act.

Section 15 of the 2000 Act states that it is an offence for someone to invite another to provide money, intending that it should be used, or having reasonable cause to suspect that it may be used, for terrorism purposes.

‘I am withholding all funds from the BBC, the Government and subsidiaries under Section 15 of the Terrorism Act,’ he told the inspector.

He added that he had already lodged a complaint with the BBC.

Rooke told the court: ‘I believe the BBC, who are directly funded by the licence fee, are furthering the purposes of terrorism and I have incontrovertible evidence to this effect. I do not use this word lightly given where I am.’

He was not allowed to show his pre-prepared video evidence in court because the District Judge said it was not relevant to the trial.

But the major point Rooke said he relied upon was that the BBC allegedly reported that World Trade Centre 7 had fallen 20 minutes before it did.

He also made reference to a theory about the way the skyscraper was said to have fallen in on itself, which some people believe showed signs of a controlled demolition.

Mr Rooke said: ‘The BBC reported it 20 minutes before it fell. They knew about it beforehand. Last time I was here I asked you (the judge): “Were you aware of World Trade Centre 7”?

‘You said you had heard of it. Ten years later you should have more than heard of it. It’s the BBC’s job to inform the public. Especially of miracles of science and when laws of physics become suspended.

‘They have made programmes making fools of and ridiculing those of us who believe in the laws of gravity. American reports have shown that the fall was nothing but a controlled demolition.

‘I am not looking at who demolished it – that is impossible – but the BBC actively tried to hide this from the public.’

Not paying a TV licence under Section 363 of the Communications Act is a strict liability offence, said Garth Hanniford, prosecuting. He asked Rooke why he continued to watch the BBC with no licence.

Rooke said: ‘Ignorance is not an excuse – I need to know what these people are saying.’ He later added: ‘You are asking me to commit a crime if you are asking me to pay.’

Around 100 supporters arrived at Horsham Magistrates’ Court today to watch the court case – although only 40 could pack into the public gallery.

The court called in back-up from Sussex Police with two officers standing at the door to the court and several more outside. There was cheering and applause as Rooke put his case forward in court.

District Judge Stephen Nicholls said: ‘This is not a public inquiry into 9/11. This is an offence under section 363 of the Communications Act.’

He said he had difficulty sitting in the magistrates’ court as he ‘did not believe he had the power to rule under the terrorism act’.

He said: ‘Even if I accept the evidence you say, this court has no power to create a defence in the manner which you put forward.’

Sentencing, Judge Nicholls said: ‘Mr Rooke puts the basis of his defence under Section 15 of the Terrorism Act, effectively asking the court to find the BBC is a terrorist organisation and that if he continues to pay them he himself is committing a criminal offence.

‘I have explained to Mr Rooke even if I were to accept his evidence I would be unable to find a defence.’

Speaking outside court, Rooke said he was ‘pleased’ with the outcome, ‘all things considered’

The BBC has been forced to respond to footage showing their correspondent reporting the collapse of WTC 7 before it fell on 9/11, claiming tapes from the day are somehow missing, and refusing to identify the source for their bizarre act of “clairvoyance” in accurately pre-empting the fall of Building 7.

Here is the BBC’s response to the questions about the footage that was unearthed yesterday, with my comments after each statement.

1. We’re not part of a conspiracy. Nobody told us what to say or do on September 11th. We didn’t get told in advance that buildings were going to fall down. We didn’t receive press releases or scripts in advance of events happening.

“We didn’t get told in advance that buildings were going to fall down.” If this is true, then how on earth did the BBC report the collapse of Building 7 before it happened? Psychic clairvoyance? Of course they were told that WTC 7 was coming down, just like the firefighters, police, first responders and CNN were told it was coming down. They had to have had a source for making such a claim. The BBC is acting like the naughty little boy who got caught with his hand in the cookie jar. No one here is claiming the BBC are “part of the conspiracy,” but their hideous penchant to just repeat what authorities tell them without even a cursory investigation (and with the Building they are telling us has collapsed mockingly filling the background shot of the report), is a damning indictment of their yellow journalism when it comes to 9/11.

2. In the chaos and confusion of the day, I’m quite sure we said things which turned out to be untrue or inaccurate – but at the time were based on the best information we had. We did what we always did – sourced our reports, used qualifying words like “apparently” or “it’s reported” or “we’re hearing” and constantly tried to check and double check the information we were receiving.

How do “chaos and confusion” explain how the BBC reported on the collapse of a building, a collapse that happened “unexpectedly” according to their Conspiracy Files hit piece documentary, before it happened? In one breath the BBC is claiming they were not told of the impending collapse of the Building and in the next they are telling us that all their information is sourced. Which is it to be? Did the BBC have a source telling them the building was about to collapse or not? If not, how on earth could they pre-empt its fall? Do BBC reporters have access to a time machine? What was the source of this information?

3. Our reporter Jane Standley was in New York on the day of the attacks, and like everyone who was there, has the events seared on her mind. I’ve spoken to her today and unsurprisingly, she doesn’t remember minute-by-minute what she said or did – like everybody else that day she was trying to make sense of what she was seeing; what she was being told; and what was being told to her by colleagues in London who were monitoring feeds and wires services.

Trying to make sense of what she was being told? She obviously didn’t make much sense of the fact that the Building she was reporting had collapsed was prominently standing behind her! Unfotunately, for a news organization that prides itself on accuracy and credibility, “she doesn’t remember” just doesn’t cut it as an excuse.

4. We no longer have the original tapes of our 9/11 coverage (for reasons of cock-up, not conspiracy). So if someone has got a recording of our output, I’d love to get hold of it. We do have the tapes for our sister channel News 24, but they don’t help clear up the issue one way or another.

We are asked to believe that the world’s premiere news organization has somehow lost all its tapes of perhaps the biggest news event of the past 60 years. This is a copout. Whether they have lost the tapes or not, the BBC simply doesn’t want to verify one hundred per cent their monumental foul-up, because they know it would only increase the exposure of this issue and lead to further questions. What is there to clear up? The reporter is standing in front of the building while saying it has already collapsed! This is a blatant effort to try and placate people making complaints while refusing to admit a monumental faux pas that further undermines the BBC’s credibility in the aftermath of the Conspiracy Files debacle.

5. If we reported the building had collapsed before it had done so, it would have been an error – no more than that. As one of the comments on You Tube says today “so the guy in the studio didn’t quite know what was going on? Woah, that totally proves conspiracy… “

So now the BBC are so devoid of answers, they have to enlist the help of some moronic comment on a You Tube blog? Instead of issuing official statements and seeking the advice of legal professionals they produce a cobbled together five paragraph blog and include the testimony of some moron on a You Tube comment board. Pathetic! Answer the question BBC – what was your source for reporting on multiple occasions that Building 7 had collapsed before it had collapsed, and identify the source that enabled the anchorman to comment that the building had collapsed due to it being weakened, an explanation still unanswered by NIST five and a half years later.

If you had reported the collapse of the twin towers before it happened would that have been just an error too? This “error” translated as $800 million plus in insurance bounty for Larry Silverstein – I’m sure Industrial Risk Insurers would be interested to know the source of your “error.” In addition, two seperate sources reported that Secret Service Agent Craig Miller died as a result of the collapse of Building 7. Do you think he would have been interested in the “error” that led to your correspondent reporting the building’s downfall in advance?

This YouTube video is an excerpt from the CNN’s live television broadcast on 9/11/2001. At about 01:58 in the clip, anchor Aaron Brown states that it’s about 4:14 Eastern Daylight Time. That means that when the he makes the announcement at the beginning of the clip, it is about 4:12

The following is a transcript of the two-minute excerpt:

“We are getting information now that one of other buildings, building 7, in the world trade center complex is on fire and has either collapsed or is collapsing. ”I .. I .. You to be honest can see these pictures just a little bit more clearly than I, but Building number 7 one of the other buildings in this very large complex of buildings that is the Trade Center … there were — there were — and that is the right way to put it — there were the two towers, but then there are a number of support buildings around it — retail spaces, restaurants, office space, garages, the trains come in from New Jersey bringing commuters taking commuters back, come into the complex that is the World Trade Center, and now we are told there is a fire there and that building may collapse as well, as you can see. ”We can see as we now look back down town, we can see the billowing smoke. It is extraordinary to us how long this scene has gone on. The smoke has not cleared at all. It has not lightened at all. It was that horrific moment when the Towers collapsed, and then we’ve been in this sort of situation ever since, as the fires continue to burn. Rose Arsie, one of our producers who has been slowly and diligently making her way to the building described the fires she saw in the areas of the Towers themselves and clearly those fires continue to burn at about 4:15 eastern daylight time today, in an unbelievable and awful scene in New York.”

WTC7.net

This video excerpt was apparently extracted from a 41-minute mpeg recording discovered in a vast archive of broadcast footage publicized in late February of 2007.Source: http://www.wtc7.net/cnn.html

At 11:07 a.m. in the morning of September 11, 2001, a CNN correspondent in New York reported that a third tower had possibly collapsed. While this report was incorrect, it is interesting to note that the reporter’s description could have applied to World Trade Center Building 7. This huge skyscraper was indeed the third tower to collapse on 9/11. However it did not come down until late in the afternoon, more than six hours after this report.

CNN correspondent Allan Dodds Frank reported by phone from Lower Manhattan. He described: “[J]ust two or three minutes ago there was yet another collapse or explosion. I’m now out of sight, a Good Samaritan has taken me in on Duane Street. But at a quarter to 11, there was another collapse or explosion following the 10:30 collapse of the second tower.

And a firefighter who rushed by us estimated that 50 stories went down. The street filled with smoke. It was like a forest fire roaring down a canyon.” [1]

WTC 7 was a 47-story tower, so would have fitted the description of the estimated “50 stories” described by Frank. And it did indeed collapse completely. One could in fact accurately describe its demise with Frank’s words: “The street filled with smoke. It was like a forest fire roaring down a canyon.” However, this collapse did not happen until 5:20 that afternoon.

What could have led Frank to make his incorrect report? Surely, even in the chaos of that morning, it would have been quite difficult for a mistaken report of another massive skyscraper coming down to have emerged out of nothing. Could the reason be that WTC 7 had originally been scheduled to be brought down (with explosives) at 10:45 a.m.? The incorrect information Frank reported had therefore been put out, by persons unknown, on the assumption that this would be the case.

However, something – as yet unknown to us – happened that meant the demolition had to be delayed, and so Building 7 was not ready to be brought down until late that afternoon.

10:45 a.m. would certainly seem a far more logical time for the masterminds behind 9/11 to have wanted to bring down WTC 7. At that time, just 17 minutes after the North Tower had come down, the collapse of a third skyscraper would have appeared less obviously suspicious. It would have been easier for those involved with covering up the truth about 9/11 to claim this collapse was simply a consequence of the two earlier ones. Instead, however, the collapse at 5:20 p.m. appeared completely inexplicable. (Unless, of course, it was a controlled demolition.)

MORE REPORTS OF A THIRD COLLAPSE

What makes Frank’s report particularly notable is that there were other incorrect reports of a third building having collapsed – or at least being in danger of collapsing – later in the day, though these made specific reference to WTC 7. These went out in the hour or so before Building 7 came down:

At 4:15 p.m., CNN reported, “We’re getting information that one of the other buildings … Building 7 … is on fire and has either collapsed or is collapsing.” At 4:27, Greg Barrow reported from New York for the BBC radio channel Five Live, “We are hearing reports from local media that another building may have caught light and is in danger of collapse.” He added, “I’m not sure if it has yet collapsed, but the report we have is talking about Building 7.” At 4:54, presenter Gavin Esler reported on the BBC’s domestic television news channel, BBC News 24: “We’re now being told that yet another enormous building has collapsed. … It is the 47-story Salomon Brothers building.” At 4:57, presenter Phil Hayton announced on the BBC’s international channel, BBC World, “We’ve got some news just coming in actually that the Salomon Brothers building in New York right in the heart of Manhattan has also collapsed.” [2] However, WTC 7 (the “Salomon Brothers building”) did not collapse until almost 25 minutes later.

WHY PUT OUT ADVANCE REPORTS OF THE COLLAPSE?

These reports indicated that some people knew in advance that Building 7 was going to come down. This would have been quite a feat, since, as the New York Times put it, “before then, no modern, steel-reinforced high-rise in the United States had ever collapsed in a fire.” [3] Perhaps the real reason we heard these premature reports was that this information had somehow been passed to the media by the 9/11 perpetrators, as a cautious attempt at preventing speculation that WTC 7 was brought down with explosives. This was clearly what the collapse resembled, with the building falling completely and symmetrically into its own footprint in just 6.6 seconds.

Indeed, CBS News anchor Dan Rather commented at the time that it was “reminiscent of … when a building was deliberately destroyed by well-placed dynamite to knock it down.” [4]

Speculation such as this would surely have been a threat to the official 9/11 story, as it might lead people to ponder whether–rather than being committed by Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda–the attacks were an “inside job.” To stifle any such debate, an official narrative would need to have been put out promptly.

Perhaps this was why at 5:10 p.m. – still before WTC 7 had come down – the BBC’s Phil Hayton reported: “[Y]ou might have heard I was talking a few moments ago about the Salomon building collapsing and indeed it has. … It seems this wasn’t the result of a new attack but because the building had been weakened during this morning’s attack.” [5] It appears the information had been put out already, not only that WTC 7 had collapsed, but also that it had come down without the use of explosives: It collapsed because “the building had been weakened during this morning’s attack.”

[2] These reports are summarized in Richard Porter, “Part of the Conspiracy? (2).” BBC News, March 2, 2007.

[3] James Glanz and Eric Lipton, “Burning Diesel is Cited in Fall of 3rd Tower.” New York Times, March 2, 2002.

[4] CBS News, September 11, 2001.

[5] Quoted in Richard Porter, “Part of the Conspiracy? (2).”

Ah, but what about an alternative scenario? What if, just maybe the real destination for flight 93 was not Washington, D.C., but WTC-7?

A Reader Comments – May 2, 2007

Pennsylvania is 307 miles across. United Airlines flight 93 crashed near Shanksville, Pennsylvania, in Somerset county. According to google maps, Shanksville is roughly 300 miles away from NYC. And that is going by highways, and not as the crow flies.

Flight 93 was shot down (or crashed, take your pick) at 10:06 a.m. on 9/11.

United Airlines flight 93 was a Boeing 757, which has a maximum cruising speed of 914 km/hr. Which equals 567 mph. Going at 550 to 567 mph, flight 93 could easily have made it to NYC in time to crash into WTC-7 at 10:45 a.m.—–the time that CNN reporter Allan Dodds Frank reported that a third, 50 story skyscraper had collapsed in NYC.

However, if the passengers of flight 93 did indeed bumrush the hijackers, and take control of the airplane, either a: they crashed the plane, rather than let the hijackers do any more damage, or b: the government shot the plane down with a missile to prevent their plans from being wrecked.

Now, that would leave a 47 story skyscraper still standing in NYC all wired and rigged to collapse, with no cover story plane to crash into it. It would explain why a CNN reporter was saying another skyscraper had collapsed at 10:45 a.m. when no such thing had happened. Remember, Allan Dodds Frank, the CNN reporter said that a firefighter had given him this information. And we know from audio and videotapes on youtube that firefighters ran around warning people that WTC-7 was about to explode shortly before 5:20 or so p.m., when the building did actually fall down.

One thing we know for certain. WTC-7 was brought down by a controlled demolition. No one with an ounce of brain power or common sense could possibly look at those videos of WTC-7 (aka the Salomon Bros. building) and not realize that that is a controlled demolition.

The sheer, breathtaking perfection of the collapse of WTC-7 violates all known laws of physics. All known laws of chemistry. All known laws of structural engineering. Except, of course, if it were a controlled demolition, which it was.

]]>http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/?feed=rss2&p=86260Phil Hayton and WTC7http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/?p=8588
http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/?p=8588#commentsMon, 28 Apr 2008 00:00:00 +0000before it actually fell. An intriguing insight into the wilfull ignorance that permeates the mass media ]]>before it actually fell. An intriguing insight into the wilfull ignorance that permeates the mass media ]]>http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/?feed=rss2&p=85880Attempted 9/11 Hoax Was A Failurehttp://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/?p=7569
http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/?p=7569#commentsFri, 09 Nov 2007 00:00:00 +0000http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/?feed=rss2&p=75690New 9/11 Truth Film Exposes BBC Hit Piecehttp://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/?p=6881
http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/?p=6881#commentsTue, 03 Jul 2007 00:00:00 +0000http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/?feed=rss2&p=68810New Footage Re-Ignites BBC Building 7 Controversyhttp://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/?p=6659
http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/?p=6659#commentsTue, 15 May 2007 00:00:00 +0000for the second time that day!]]>for the second time that day!]]>http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/?feed=rss2&p=66590The Smoking Gun WTC7, BBC Jumps The Gun !!!http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/?p=6196
http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/?p=6196#commentsFri, 27 Apr 2007 00:00:00 +0000http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/?feed=rss2&p=61960Santa Fe New Mexican Covers BBC Building 7 Controversyhttp://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/?p=6255
http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/?p=6255#commentsFri, 27 Apr 2007 00:00:00 +0000fact that the BBC was reporting the collapse of WTC 7 twentysix minutes before it actually fell continues]]>As today is my last day setting the homepage for The Santa Fe New Mexican I thought I would bid you all farewell. I resigned two weeks ago to better pursue my personal interests. It is to my great amusement however that this day coincides with an astonishing story to share in this blog. There is an uproar rising across the Internet over what is being called yet another blatant, 9/11 smoking gun.

Early this week an independent researcher, reviewing video archives of the BBC’s 9/11 coverage, divulged the discovery of an earth shaking incongruence. BBC reporters announced the collapse of the 47 story Salomon Brothers Building 23 minutes BEFORE the actual sudden collapse. This building, also known as WTC 7, is clearly visible, standing tall, as a reporter gestures to the live view through the window behind her.

Despite the fact the Google censored the initial internet premier of this archived video, removing it from their video service, many more “mirrors” of the video were then set up across the net.

Some may find this simply bewildering or a coincidental mistake. For 9/11 researchers it is a further revealing piece of evidence confirming internal premeditation to demolish the WTC. In response to demands for an explanation the BBC released a statement denying confirmation and foreknowledge. I recommend everyone wanting a good laugh to read their response.

The BBC claim that they lost the tapes of their 9/11 coverage due to a, and I quote, “cock-up, not conspiracy.”
They just happened to lose their coverage of the most critical and historic event in the 21st century? The BBC’s general policy on media management states:

The following components to be retained:-
· Two broadcast standard copies of all transmitted/published TV, Radio and BBCi output – one to be stored on a separate site as a master
· One browse-quality version for research purposes, to protect the broadcast material
· All supporting metadata to enable research and re-use
· A selection of original (i.e. unedited) material for re-use/re-versioning purposes
· Hardware/software/equipment to enable replay/transfer of the media

Obviously coverage like the 9/11 attacks would have merited many more copies than everyday broadcasts. And we are to believe the are all lost?

The BBC states that the events of 9/11 are “seared” in the memory of reporter Jane Standley, but that she can’t remember what happened minute by minute. Personally I think watching a building collapse just minutes after saying it already had would be quite memorable.

The BBC tries to excuse possible mistakes due to the confusion of the day. But how many other 47 story buildings are near the WTC? No other buildings fell around the time or area of the Salomon Brothers Building (WTC 7.) No other steel-frame buildings in the history of the world have even collapsed “due to fire” beside WTC 1, 2 and 7. Building 7 wasn’t hit by an airplane and wasn’t even directly adjacent to the twin towers. Calling that shot is no coincidence.

The BBC states: “We do have the tapes for our sister channel News 24, but they don’t help clear up the issue one way or another.” I’ll say they don’t clear it up, at least not how the BBC would like. Tapes of News 24 (wait, let me find a new link, Google Video has now censored the footage from News 24… here is one!) have other reporters claiming they “are being told” that WTC 7 has collapsed. The time-stamp on News 24 further confirms that the press release the BBC was apparently issued came out 23 minutes before the actual collapse.

“Are being told”? But the BBC now claims “We didn’t get told in advance that buildings were going to fall down. We didn’t receive press releases or scripts in advance of events happening.” And yet the BBC “rebuttal” goes on to say they always source their reports. I think we will have to follow the evidence on that one.

The BBC response finishes saying that an error is not evidence of conspiracy. (Lol. Is a random commenter on YouTube the best source they can get now?) You call it an error if it was committed once. But three times? It has now emerged that CNN reported that WTC 7 “has either collapsed or is collapsing” while the building was still standing. Watch it here.

So now it should be plain to see that there was foreknowledge of Building 7’s demise. But how could anyone know? Let’s listen to the man who admitted to demolishing the building explain. Ya gotta watch this video excerpted from a September 2002 PBS documentary. That man is Larry Silverstein, the man who leased the WTC buildings mere months before the attack and made billions of dollars on his unusual terrorism insurance plan. “Pull it” is controlled demolition industry jargon for imploding a building. Silverstein’s spokesperson later denied the admission, saying he meant “pull the firemen out of the building.” Just listen to his statement though and its obvious what he meant.

Might then WTC 7’s collapse have been a controlled demolition? Watch the actual collapse again here and see what it looks like. That’s Dan Rather’s voice. Really tells it like it is there didn’t he. The building wasn’t in the process of collapsing minutes beforehand, but completely drops in the matter of a few seconds. It drops so fast actually that there is only one known scenario where such a free fall collapse is even physically possible. Controlled demolition.

Dr. Steven E. Jones, former physics professor of BYU University wrote a paper demonstrating this. It lead to his early retirement, but not before being published in a peer reviewed scientific journal. Dr. Jones later performed chemical analysis on melted WTC steel that suggests thermate may have been used in the demolition.

Eye witness testimonies also suggest controlled demolition. Over and over I have seen many different cases: warnings on the street going out before hand, explosions coinciding with the collapse, etc. For the sake of time I’ll just mention one story here.

Why does Silverstein explain why they blew 7 up and later retract? I don’t know, but in the beginning there were very few people questioning 9/11and he basically related how things went along that day. Nowadays, with Loose Change being the most popular video on Google, questions are going to be asked. Like, how could they take down the building without weeks of planning and placement?

So why the early news reports? The BBC anchor who provides an explanation for the collapse 23 minutes before it even happens may give us some idea. The demolition being planned, an explanation for a huge building disappearing in a matter of seconds might have seemed to be in order, and a press release was prepared ahead of time to start the cover up from the first moment. But perhaps the news wire went out early, or the demolition went off late. This matter, of course, remains to be properly investigated.

There are many more question to be considered, and WTC 7 is just a small part of 9/11. For a look at the bigger picture and to answer some of those questions check out the film Terrorstorm. Thats enough to get someone started anyway.

The BBC is quick to deny that they are “part of the conspiracy” (italics added) and yet ironically that statement itself almost implies that there is a conspiracy.

And thus I turn in my badge, err, parking permit, and say goodbye to The New Mexican. Perhaps I’m leaving you with a question though. Why aren’t the big TV news programs and newspapers covering the BBC’s remarkable gift for clairvoyance? If you want them to demand it of them.

Better yet, take matters of informing yourself into your own hands. As I hope this blog entry has demonstrated, we have the technology with the Internet to move from the old autocratic information paradigm into a democratic system. Instead of today’s five media companies who own most of the news industry dictating self-serving knowledge to millions of Americans, information can be traded freely based on its inherent merits in a diverse and widespread self correcting network.

But to come to face the ground truth we must take the time to ween ourselves from the old pipeline and open up to a bigger picture. 911blogger is a useful site for 9/11 news in this process. Alex Jones is an excellent news source to start looking at to understand the forces of fascism, tyranny and corruption taking control of the highest levels of our government. If you like the videos I used to post occasionally in my blog there are many more in a new feature called Rense TV part way down rense.com. There are many others out there as well, but use your discernment to weed out disinformation. Check the sources for yourself and confirm.

Obviously I don’t agree with everything presented at these sites. But that’s the point. Think for yourself. Push your limits. Become your own Editor.http://www.freenewmexican.com/readerblogs/57738.html#